M-312: How did we get here?

New Democrat MP Niki Ashton stood in the House of Commons and, as she has for some time now, reprimanded the government for reopening “the abortion debate.”

She was referring to the vote Wednesday night on Motion 312, put forth by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth that, if approved by the House, would have formed a committee to investigate a section of the Criminal Code that determines when a foetus is considered a human.

Ashton told the House that her party, the New Democrats, is “the only party united that will stand up for women’s equality,” because, she said, “this is a matter of rights.” Then she asked whether the government would do the same.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson rose on the government side to answer and spread the blame around.

“The New Democrats were part of the subcommittee that allowed this matter to come before Parliament,” he said. “All I can tell them is if now they disagree with that or if they find this very upsetting, they should take that up with their committee members and pass that on to their House leaders.”

It seemed perhaps an odd tack to take, but technically, Nicholson is correct on one part of his answer, at least. Or, as a spokeswoman from his office abruptly told me later Wednesday afternoon when I asked her to clarify the minister’s statement: “The minister meant what he said.”

Well, fine.

Anyway, there is a member of the NDP on the subcommittee on private member’s business (an offshoot of the parliamentary committee on procedure and House affairs). But, we don’t actually know for sure how he voted on whether this motion should go to the House of Commons.

Here’s what happened. The subcommittee on private member’s business has three members and a chair. The members are Liberal MP Stéphane Dion, NDP MP Philip Toone and Conservative MP Scott Reid, who, it should be noted, is a procedural geek if ever there was one. The chair of the committee is at the time was Conservative Harold Albrecht.

“We’re debating a bill that has to do with abortion. I thought this had been decided over and over again I’m shocked and appalled that it’s being presented today to this committee. The thought of bringing it to the House would appall me even more.”

Toone put to the committee that the question had been answered “over and over again,” noting a Supreme Court case (Tremblay vs. Daigle) where, he said, “judges voted in favour of allowing Ms. Daigle to have an abortion.”

As Reid Albrecht then pointed out, the committee’s job is to “decide on the votability of motions and bills,” and warned him that he was entering into a debate that they ought to perhaps be having in the House.

Toone, understanding Reid Albrecht’s position then argued that the Supreme Court “rules on questions of human rights, that is the law of the land.”

“I consider this bill quite out of order,” he said. “There’s a room full of men deciding whether this is going to go forward. I had a conversation this morning with people who told me that they can’t believe that we still have an International Women’s Day. I guess we do because we’re having this debate and I find it appalling.”

After some discussion on which Supreme Court case was being discussed, the analyst, Michel Bédard stepped in to note that, “the Constitution actually protects the House of Commons from outside interference because it’s part of its privilege. The House of Commons could ask one of its committees to study any subject.”

Bédard also made an important point about how the motion was worded – that there would be a committee formed to see “what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace” the section of the Criminal Code.

Dion then told Toone that he shared “his outrage,” but “in this case, the motion asks for the creation of a committee to examine a problem.” And, he said, “nothing comes before the right Parliament has to debate issues. Parliament is a forum for debate, by definition. I fail to see on what constitutional basis we could prevent the House of Commons from debating issues, even things we don’t like.”

Agreeing with Bédard, Dion said, “This does not concern seeing whether Parliament can invalidate a court decision; nothing in the motion asks for that. It is asking Parliament to study, to create a committee, to examine an issue, to make a recommendation. I don’t see how we can oppose it.”

For his part, Reid recommended that the committee delay discussing the motion. He wanted more time to give everyone “the chance to read” the Tremblay vs. Daigle case Toone mentioned “so I can feel confident in making this decision.”

Dion, however, was ready to vote at that time. Reid’s suggestion (motion) to delay was therefore tied, and Albrecht, the deciding voice, opting against it. So the committee voted.

But the final vote on whether Woodworth’s motion should be deemed votable in the House of Commons was not a recorded one, so we don’t know who voted which way.

On Wednesday, the word from some on the Hill was that Toone voted against the idea of hearing it in the House. Others said he had actually abstained altogether from the final vote. Still others said it was Dion who abstained. But all we know from what we can publicly see is that we don’t know.

Given it was not a recorded vote, all the parties involved are going to have their own version of events. The NDP will argue that it was the Liberals’ fault. The Conservatives will argue (did argue) that it was the NDP’s fault. The Liberals, as usual, are caught somewhere in the middle, and haven’t blamed anyone. Yet.

But judging by the conversation we can see, it looks as though the most reluctant member of the subcommittee was Reid. Dion and Toone have strong positions that they voice. Take that for whatever it’s worth.

In any case, it passed.

On Wednesday evening the House voted against Woodworth’s motion, 203-91.